Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZoning Board Of Appeals - Minutes - 10/09/1986ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 9. 1986 Regular Meeting - 8:30 A.M. Minutes The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, October 9, 1986, in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by Boardmembers Walker, Lieser, Barnett, Lancaster. Boardmembers absent (excused) were Lawton and Thede. Staff Present: Barnes, Roy, Brayfield Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 11, 1986 - Approved as Published The minutes of the September 11, 1986 regular meeting were unanimously approved. Appeal # 1761 Section 118-43 (B), 118-43 (C), by Tony Stoddard. 320 N. Loomis - Approved with Condition. ---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 6000 square feet to 4900 square feet, and the lot width from 60 feet to 35 feet for a new duplex in the RM zone. Petitoner's statement of hardship: This lot is in the old part of town and the previous structure burned down. The petitioner wishes to build a new duplex on the lot which will meet all required setbacks. Nothing can be built without a variance. ---Staff recommendation: None. This lot has some history that may be helpful to the Board. On August 13, 1981, the Board considered a similar variance for this property and the lots on either side. The petitioner wanted to put duplexes on all three lots and the Board felt that three duplexes in a row on small lots was too much for the neighborhood. They consequently granted variances for only single family dwellings. This decision was appealed to City Council and was upheld. Consequently, single family dwellings were built on the adjacent lots. Nothing was built on this lot, the variance expired and the original petitioner sought another variance for a single family dwelling on December 8, 1983. This variance was granted. On September 12, 1984 the original petitioner came back to the Board to ask for a variance once again to allow a duplex on the lot. This time the variance was approved. Nothing was ever built on the lot, so now a different petitioner is asking for a duplex variance." ZBA Minutes - Oct• r 9, 1986 • Page 2 Three notices were returned, no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal., stating that the variance had been tabled from the last meeting because the petitioner did not show up. Mr. Barnes gave a brief history of the property and the requested variance. Petitioner Tony Stoddard, 2804 Swing Station Way, spoke in favor of the variance. The proposed project would be an over/under duplex with two parking spaces in the front and a two -car garage in the back. The front yard would be paved with exposed aggregate to allow for parking in the front. Mr. Barnes stated that long term parking stalls could be downsized, and put in the back if the Board was concerned with having so much pavement in the front of the duplex. Dora Gallegos, 748 Rocky Mountain Way, and Victoria Mestes, co -owners of a neighboring property, spoke in opposition to the variance. They felt that the duplex would add to the parking problem in the neighborhood. Most people park on the street in front of their house, some park in the alley, and people who attend activities at Holy Family Church all add to the problem. They would not be opposed to a single family residence, but a duplex would add to the problem. Boardmember Barnett asked how the property was currently being used and if there were any other duplexes in the same block. Mr. Stoddard said that the lot was currently vacant, and that there were no other duplexes in the same block, but he knew of a duplex one block away, on Maple Street. Boardmember Walker asked if the driveways were typicallly in the front or off the alley in this neighborhood. Mr. Barnes stated that most of the driveways in the front of the houses were not used, people typically parked on the street. Also, the 35 foot lot width was typical of this side of the street. Boardmember Walker requested that Mr. Barnes review for the Board what uses were permissible in the RM zone. Mr. Barnes stated that single family homes, duplexes, churches, schools, and multi -family (with P & Z approval) were all allowed as use by right. Boardmember Walker thought that dealing with the lot width was a reasonable hardship. Reducing the lot area would be questionable because they were planning to build a duplex on an already small lot. He was particularly concerned that the large expanse of concrete in the front yard would not be in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. He suggested that Mr. Stoddard consider putting one down -scaled parking stall in the front, and three in the back, to preserve some of the front yard. Mr. Stoddard replied that he had his heart set on the garage, and questioned whether it would fit in the back if another parking space was added. ZBA Minutes - Oct tl]6er 9, 1986 Page 3 Boardmember Barnett agreed with Mr. Walker's concerns. The minimum lot area for a duplex... and a single family residence is 6000 square feet. He would be more inclined to allow a single family dwelling on a lot this size. He was against paving the whole front yard. He was in favor of setting some condtions to the variance, if granted. There was some discussion as to whether it would be possible to fit a two -car garage and a parking, stall in back of the duplex. The Board concluded that it was feasible, but a sideyard setback variance would be needed to allow for a 22' garage. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance for the hardship stated with the condition that only one parking stall would be accessed off the street, and the other three would be built in the back. The Board also granted a variance to allow the garage to be set back three feet from the sideyard. Boardmember Lieser seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Barnett, Lancaster. Nays: None. Appeal # 1763 Section 118-41 (E), by John Miller, 313 Allen Street - Approved with Condition. ---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback for a detached garage/workshop on a corner lot in the RL zone from 15 feet to 7 feet. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: See petitioners letter. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." No notices were returned; two letters were received. Petitioner John Miller, 313 Allen Street, spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that he wanted to build a garage for a workshop with access off Tulane. There would be a gravel drive to allow unloading wood at the shop. The garage would not be used for vehicle storage, mainly for his woodworking hobby. The woodshop would be a hobby, not a business. No one spoke in opposition to the appeal. Boardmember Barnett made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship that it saves mature trees, and for the hardship stated, with the condition that a home occupation not be conducted there. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Barnett, Lancaster. Nays: None. Appeal 111764 Section 118-97 (D), 118-97 (E), by Lloyd Gomez, 120 A West Laurel - Approved with Conditions. ---The variance would allow a barber shop to have a revolving sign. Specifically, the variance would allow an existing, traditional, red, white, and blue barber pole sign to revolve. The barber shop is located in the BG zone. ZBA Minutes - Cc Ober 9, 1986 Page 4 ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The revolving barber pole is part of Americana and shouldn't be prohibited. When the City recently required the owner to shut the pole off, some of the customers thought the store was not open, or had actually closed down. This small pole which contains no wording, would not present any traffic hazard, nor detract from the streetscape of the City if it were allowed to revolve. ---Staff recommendation: None. The petitioner's hardship would appear to be that some people think if the pole is not revolving, then he is not open because he has been in this location for a long time and clients are accustomed to a revolving pole signifying that the shop is open for business. If the Board considers granting a variance, they should do so with certain conditions, such as: 1. The pole must be attached to the building. 2. The pole can not be illuminated, and can revolve only during business hours. 3. There can not be any writing on the revolving portion of the pole. 4. The pole can be used only in connection with a barber shop. 5. The pole can be no larger than the existing pole." No notices were returned; two letters were received Zoning Administrator Barnes gave a brief history of the Sign Code, stating that up until 1979, revolving signs were allowed with certain restrictions. In 1979 City Council modified the Sign Code to prohibit the use of revolving signs. There are 8 or 9 barber poles in the city now, which were required to be turned off at the time revolving signs were prohibited. Petitioner Lloyd Gomez, owner of the barber shop at 120 A. West Laurel Street, spoke in favor of the variance. He gave a brief history of the barber pole, and stated that he felt that when the Code was enacted, it was not meant to cover the barber pole. It was not a sign, but a tradition, a professional signature. He felt that the City was concerned with keeping what is old and beautiful. He felt that the barber pole is part of traditional old Fort Collins, and is worth preserving. He stated further that he was not aware that he was in violation of Code until he was notified this year that the barber pole would have to be turned off. He felt that if it took until 1986 discover this violation, he must not have been doing anything terribly wrong. Boardmember Walker pointed out that although the barber pole had been in existence for many centuries, it was only in recent history that the pole turned. Historically, the symbol of the barber was the pole, but not necessarily revolving. ZBA Minutes - Octer 9, 1986 Page 5 The Board found that there are about eight barber poles in town that have the capacity to revolve. The Board was concerned that granting this variance would set a precedence. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Boardmember Lieser asked if the pole was lit. Mr. Gomez stated that his pole had the capability to be lit, but he did not use it because a light bulb would burn out after only a week inside the pole and it was a lot of trouble to change. Also, for the majority of time a light is not necessary. Boardmember Walker thought that the barber pole was a symbol of the profession rather than a sign for an individual commercial entity. He felt that the barber pole has been around for a long time, but has been revolving only in recent history. But he felt that it is reasonable consideration, and any code has certain issues where the intent of the Code is being met, although the letter of the Code is not being followed. He did not have a problem in granting the variance. Boardmember Barnett stated that the Board needs to be careful because if the variance is granted, it will set a precedent. Moving signs have been prohibited for good reasons; he would not like to see large moving and flashing signs in Fort Collins. But not everyone is the same - the Board needs to consider legitimate differences. The hardship comes down to wanting the sign to revolve because it is culturally appropriate for a barber pole and lets people know if he is open or not. That is not a real big hardship. There is not a significant difference in the appearance of the barber pole if it is rotating or not rotating. He did not have a problem with granting a variance in this instance. The Board stated that if other barbers wanted to have their poles rotate, it would be considered on a case by case basis. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve the variance because it was a cultural issue worth granting a varinacce for, with the following six conditions: 1) that the pole be attached to the building, 2) it should only revolve during business hours, 3) no writing is allowed on the pole, 4) it can only be used in connection with the barber shop, 5) the pole can be no larger than the existing pole, 6) and that the variance is for the specific pole that was presented to Board. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Barnett, Lancaster. Boardmember Lancaster left the meeting at this point leaving members Walker, Lieser, and Barnett. Appeal #1765 Section 118-43 (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), by Les Charvat, 244 Park Street - Denied. ---The variance would reduce the required lot area from 7152 square feet to 2500 square feet, the lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet, the front yard setback from 15 feet to 2 feet 8 inches, the rear yard setback ZBA Minutes - OcOer 9, 1986 • Page 6 from 15 feet to 0 feet, and the street side setback along the north lot line from 15 feet to 1 foot. The variances are requested to allow an existing, illegal duplex in the RM zone to be brought up to code. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The present owner got the property back through foreclosure earlier this year. He sold the property in 1979 to someone who illegally converted the building into a duplex. Prior to that time, the owner lived in the dwelling and had a small grocery store in the front part of the building. The present owner has inherited this "duplex" and would like to make it legal. The lot and building are existing. ---Staff recommendation: None." No notices were returned, one letter was received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal stating that historically, the property had never been used as a single family dwelling. Until 1979, the building had been used as a store with a residence in the back. It was sold in 1979. and the new owner illegally converted it into a duplex. Now Mr. Charvat has it back, and would like to legalize the duplex, which requires some zoning variances, and would also require some remodeling to comply with the building code. He is asking for a number of zoning variances, however, after reviewing the appeal, Mr. Barnes found that the lot area variance was actually from 6000 square feet to 2500 square feet. (Rather than from 7152 square feet to 2500 square feet). There is an outside entrance to the duplex on the south side, and the neighbor who wrote the letter to the Zoning Board is requesting that a fence be put up on this side of the property. The lot line is right on the side of the house; it is a zero foot rear setback. The Code would require two parking spaces because of the width of the lot. The existing garage appears to be a one car garage. Petitioner Les Charvat, 317 N. Pearl, stated that if the variance was approved, he would widen the existing garage to accomodate two cars, thereby satisfying the requirements for two off-street parking spaces. Mr. Charvat stated that the units were two bedroom, but he was unsure of the square footage of each unit. There is one unit in front, and one behind, both are two-story. The 2384 sq. foot area does not include the garage. Boardmember Lieser stated that a letter was received from a neighbor that was separated from Mr. Charvat's property by only a nine foot sideyard, and that she felt that the lot is extremely small for the building. Mr. Barnes pointed out that this is an existing building. Mr. Charvat stated that the building had been there since 1924. Mr. Barnes said that if the variance was granted, it would have to brought up to current building standards, and that Mr. Charvat had already contacted the Building Inspection Department. Boardmember Walker asked about the size of the lot, wanting to know if the back part of the lot was deeded off in past years. Mr. Charvat stated that the lots were broken up that way from the beginning. ZBA Minutes - Octer 9, 1986 Page 7 Boardmember Barnett asked Mr. Charvat when he learned that the building was going to be converted into a duplex. Mr. Charvat stated that he did not know about the illegal duplex until Mr. Michaud, an inspector told them that no permits were applied for. It was about the time the building was foreclosed. The buyers had several ideas as to what they were going to do with the building, and represented themselves as contractors so Mr. Charvat assumed that they would abide by the laws. Mr. Barnes stated that Building Inspection Office was contacted by the buyers shortly after they bought the property, about what they would need to do to convert it. He explained about the Zoning Board and building codes, but evidently they chose not to do that, and went ahead and converted it illegally. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. Boardmember Walker stated that he did not agree with the argument that somebody else made the illegal conversion, and therefore Mr. Charvat should be able to legitimize the use. He felt that the Zoning Board of Appeals should review the property in terms of its suitability as a duplex irrespective of its history. He felt that the building was originally set up as a traditional corner grocery store, and concerns such as backyards and setbacks were not relevant at the time. Mr. Charvat was asking to convert a building that was designed as a business structure into a living structure, and he felt that the fact that there were so many variances was a sign that they were trying to put too much on the lot. He felt that there were better uses for the property. It would be more appropriate as a home occupation. Zoning Administrator Barnes pointed out that although it was designed as a corner grocery store, retail sales were not allowed as a home occupation. Boardmember Barnett stated his concern that it was a large building, but much of the square footage was taken up by two parking spaces. The upstairs is tiny, about a half -story. The units inside are small. There is a tiny yard, with available parking for one unit. The other unit would not have any outside space at all. Historically, zoning was for the purpose of separating incompatible uses, and also to provide for open space to the housing units immediately adjacent. He had some real problems with legalizing a previously illegal activity. Boardmember Walker made a motion to deny the variance for lack of hardship. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Barnett. Nays: Lieser. Appeal 11 1766 Section 118-95 (A), by John Shaw, 808 Lemay Avenue - Approved with Condition. ---The variance would allow a 47 square foot per face groundsign, which is within 50 feet of a driveway, to be setback 0 feet instead of the required 15 feet. The sign does not have free air space and advertises a car wash in the C zone. ZBA Minutes - Octer 9, 1986 • Page 8 ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: This is a new subdivision. When it was approved, the City required that the owner dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way, thus the new property line is 20 feet behind the curb, so a 0 setback meets the intent of the code and presents no traffic visibility hazards. If the sign were setback 15 feet, it would be hard to see because the building to the north is built right up to the right-of-way and there are very large trees to the south. ---Staff recommendation: Approval. The adjacent building and the trees would make it hard to see a sign which is setback the required 15 feet until a motorist is right on top of it. This could result in people making sudden stops in traffic. The intent of the code is met since the sign is setback 20 feet from the curb, allowing plenty of room for exiting cars to see oncoming traffic. A condition should be placed on the variance which requires that if Lemay should ever be widened, the sign would have to be brought into compliance, or a new variance obtained. No notices were returned: no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the variance stating that the property is a vacant piece of property across from the new Albertson's on Lemay. The building on the north actually encroaches on the right-of-way, and mature trees block the view of the lot in question. In the process of subdividing the land, the city required the dedication of additional right-of-way, which moved the property line back to 20 feet east of the curb. Any sign that met the setback requirements would be 35 feet from the curb. The intent of the setback provision for groundsigns is to insure that adequate site distance for on -coming traffic to eliminate traffic visibility problem esists. The intent of the Code is met because of the distance of the right-of-way from the street. Petitioner John Shaw, of Shaw Sign and Lighting, stated that he did not take variances lightly, and requests them as a last resort. He felt that the proposed setback variance would still meet the intent of the Code, but would solve his clients visibility problems. The sign is 15'8" high. A freestanding sign had been considered, but it would have had to be about 20 feet tall, and they felt that this was too tall. The proposed sign is 15'8" high, and would be constructed of aluminum. It would be internally illuminated, and two small exposed tubes of blue neon at the top and bottom of the sign. Boardmember Walker stated that part of the hardship was the fact that the City required additional right-of-way. With the addtional right -of. -way, the sign meets the intent of the Code. But at some point the City may want to widen the street, which could create a problem. He would like to add a condition that if Lemay ever gets widened, the sign would have to be brought into compliance, or a new variance sought. No one spoke in opposition to the variance. ZBA Minutes - OC*er 9, 1986 • Page 9 Boardmember Barnett felt that the hardship was that the lot was not wide, and the neighboring properties tended to obscure visibility of the property. He agreed that the sign would need to be reviewed if Lemay was widened. Boardmember Barnett made a motion to grant the variance for the hardship pleaded, with the conditon that should Lemay Avenue be widened, the sign would have to be brought into compliance with the Sign Code or a new variance be obtained. Boardmember Walker seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Barnett. Nays: None. Appeal 11 1767 Section 118-95 (A), 118-93 (B) (3), 118-95 (D), by John Shaw, 2110 W. Elizabeth - Original Variance Denied, Modified Variance Approved. ---The variance would allow a 40 square foot per face groundsign located within 50 feet of a driveway to be setback 0 feet instead of 15 feet. The sign contains no free air space. The variance would also increase the sign allowance from 210 square feet to 257.20 square feet, and allow the property to have two groundsigns instead of one, the menu board for the drive -up lane being the second ground sign. The signs are for a pizza restaurant in the BP zone. Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner would like to have a groundsign to qualify for the bonus sign allowance, however the only place to put one to mark the entrance is in an island which was redesigned to accomodate the adjacent PUD, and is no longer deep enough to allow a sign to be setback 15 feet. In order to meet the franchise requirements for signage, and since the City counts the menu board as a sign, a variance is requested to increase the signage. The menu board is not visible from the street, but it is detached from the building, and thus is a groundsign and a variance is needed to allow it. It can't be attached to the building because the drive -up wouldn't function properly. Staff recommendation: Denial of the setback variance, denial of the request to increase the sign allowance, approval of the request to allow the menu board sign as a second freestanding sign. There is some concern about traffic visibility if a ground sign is located this close to the curb. There is some hardship because of the size of the island for granting a setback variance, but not to 0 feet. A suggestion would be to require the sign to be a freestanding sign with free air space, and possibly reduce the required setback for a sign this size from 11 feet to 5 feet. The 210 square feet of allowance for this property applies only if all the signs are individual letter signs and/or groundsigns. If the main sign along the street is changed to a freestanding sign, then this "bonus" sign allowance no longer applies, and the allowance would only be 140 square feet. However, since the petitioner is attempting to comply with the bonus requirements, but probably can't because of the size of the island, some hardship exists to warrant increasing the allowance from ZBA Minutes - Ocleer 9, 1986 Page 10 111 U 140 square feet to 210 square feet, but not to 257 square feet. The variance to allow the menu board sign is a common variance granted to drive -up restaurants, especially when the sign is not visible from the street, as is the case here." No notices were returned. No letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes reviewed the appeal. He explained the bonus sign allowance, and how it affected this property. He also stated that the variance request for a second groundsign (a menu board sign) is a very common variance request. The island in front of the property was deeper, but had been revised to allow delivery trucks to access the property. Petitioner John Shaw, of Shaw Sign 5 Lighting, and Tony Fonte, owner of Little Caesar's Pizza, spoke in favor of the appeal, stating that they were asking for the variance because the large landscaping to the east would block the view of the signage if it is not close to the road, and in trying to meet the requirements for the bonus sign allowance for up to 210 square feet, they want to stay with a groundsign. They are asking for a menu board as well. Boardmember Leiser stated that she had no problem with the menu board, that type of variance had been granted before for drive -through restaurants. Ms. Lieser asked why the rest of the signage needed to be so large. Owner Tony Fonte stated that part of their construction included deceleration lanes to provide safer access to the PUD. Part of the project closed up all of the curbs on the corner, so the Top Hat Car Wash access will be through their driveway. By doing that, there will be a lot of traffic coming around the curve into the Circle K area. He felt that a groundsign will be a traffic hazard at that location. He didn't feel they should be penalized for letting Circle K use the corner as access to their property. They are asking for a free-standing sign on the corner to allow visibility. Boardmember Walker stated that he was asking for something other than the design submitted to the Board. Mr. Shaw stated that the groundsign was their first choice, but a freestanding sign would be the best for that corner. (A copy of the new sign with free air space was then submitted to the Board.) Boardmember Walker liked the idea of having a sign with free air space for traffic safety. He agreed with staff that they should not be penalized for the changes required by the PUD and he would be willing to give them the bonus although a sign with free air space is being used instead of a groundsign. He did have a problem with with granting more that the 210 square foot sign allownce. He did not see the hardship, other than the franchise requires more. Usually it goes back to the franchise that the signs are not allowed in Fort Collins, and accomodations are made. Mr. Shaw stated that the additional sign allowance would be for two reasons: the franchise required it, and because they did not realize that the menu board sign was included in the total allowance since it was not visible from the street. 7.BA Minutes - Oder 9, 1986 • Page 11 Boardmember Leiser asked if the signs were coming from the franchise or if they were to be manufactured in town. Mr. Shaw stated that it would be built in town, so if necessary, the signs could be downsized to bring it under 210 square feet including the menu board. Boardmember Barnett felt that the hardship was that there was a need to provide a freestanding sign because of traffic concerns and site distance, and because of the way the island got squeezed, the groundsign couldn't be done. He had no problem with giving the bonus because they tried to comply, but couldn't because of the site configuration. He would not be willing to go to 257 square feet. The menu board has always been included in the total sign allowance. Mr. Shaw would like to request a 0' setback for the freestanding sign because there is no room on the island for the required 11 foot setback. The Board discussed where the best place would be to locate the sign on the island. Mrs. Thelma Johnson, 2908 Eagle Drive, owner of the 2.5 acres west of the project spoke. She wanted to know exacly where the sign would be and how large it would be. Mr. Barnes showed her where it would be in relation to her property and Mr. Shaw said that it would be about 13 feet tall.. Boardmember Barnett made a motion to deny the variance applied for, for the purpose of reconstructing an appropriate variance. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Barnett. Nays: None. Boardmember Walker made a motion to approve a variance to have a menu board as a second ground sign, reduce the required setback for the proposed freestanding sign from 11 feet to 5 feet, and to allow the applicant to receive the bonus signage under the conditions that all other requirements for bonus signage be met (other that the groundsign requirement) for a total 210 square foot sign allowance. Boardmember Walker found the hardship to be the traffic considerations that required changing from a goundsign to a freestanding sign. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Barnett. Nays: None. Appeal # 1768 Section 118-41 (E), 118-81 (C) (1), by Dale and Karen Kirkley, 3020 W. Prospect - Approved for Home Occupation, Setback Request Denied. ---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for a garage addition to a single family dwelling in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner would like to add on to his existing garage in order to have a place to park a 26 foot motor home and a pickup truck. The rear lot line is adjacent to an alley, so the reduced setback will not adversely affect any adjacent property owners. ---Staff recommendation: Denial of setback reduction. This is a fairly deep lot, and there should be adequate room for vehicles to turn even ZBA Minutes - OIL 9, 1986 • Page 12 if the building is setback the required distance. Approval of the home occupation request if there are no objections from the neighbors. It appears that all of the properties west of this lot to Overland Trail are operating a business from a detached garage. Also, right across the street from this lot is a car wash, a 7-11, and a gas station. So this would not exactly be out of keeping with this immediate neighborhood. No notices were returned; no letters were received. Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that the property is located directly across the street from a vacant lot, a car wash, and a gas station. The proposal is to use the detached garage for a home occuaption, which is not allowed under the Code. The garage would be in the rear of the property and the lot is deep. There is large detached garage next door, being used for a business, and another neighboring property is building used for a ceramics business. Both were there before the properties were annexed into the city. Petitioner Karen Kirkly, 3020 W. Prospect, stated that they were applying for the variance for three reasons, appearance, cleanliness, and maneuvering the vehicles in the back. The garage will be used to store roofing materials, which now tend to be stacked against the fence. The five foot setback would still allow for the utility easement across the back, but give an additional 10 feet for maneuvering vehicles. With a 7-11 close by they get a lot of trash. With less space in the back of the garage there would be less trash to clean up. The garage will have two doors, and a small office on the side. The doors will be on the south side of the building. A narrow driveway will run adjacent to the old drive to the back, and will widen out in front of the new garage to allow two vehicles to pull in. Boardmember Lieser felt that there was plenty of room for the 15 foot setback and still have room to maneuver the vehicles. There would be 59 feet left, and the City's requirements for a turn -around for the large fire trucks is 50 feet. Ms. Kirkly said they needed the room for large dumptrucks, and some other vehicles to be stored there. Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that exterior storage of materials and equipment is not allowed for a home occupation. If the dumn truck is used in connection with the business, it would not be allowed to be stored outside of the building. If they wanted to store the vehicles on the property they would have to ask for a variance to allow exterior storage. Boardmember Walker stated that the intent of the home occupation is that the property is to be used as a home first, and the business is conducted secondly. The appearance of a residential neighborhood should be maintained. Parking dumptrucks outside in the back yard detracts from the residential character of the neighborhood, and is an illegal activity. Mr. Walker told Mrs. Kirkley that they could be allowed in the garage, but if the neighbors complain because of the storage of vehicles in the back yard, she could be cited, and would have to quit the storage, or come before the Board and request a variance. ZBA Minutes - October 9. 1986 Page 13 Ms. Kirkly stated that the garage and vehicle storage is not contrary to the character of the neighborhood as it already exists. She stated that they were not planning on storing a lot of materials andequipment outside. Building the garage would give her the use of her own garage and there will not be materials in her backyard. Mr. Barnes stated that if the neighbors have a complaint (about outside storage), the Zoning Office would have to go out and make a correction notice. Mr. Walker stated he could see no hardship to justify giving the setback variance. Ms. Kirkly stated that another reason was that the 15 feet behind the garage was wasted space - weeds will grow, trash will accumulate. It could be used for other purposes. They would like to retain as much of the lawn as possible, it is their home as well as their business. Boardmember Walker made a motion to grant the varince for a home occupation to be conducted in a detached garage in the RL zone, and to deny the rear vard setback variance. Boardmember Barnett seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Barnett. Nays: None. Appeal 11769 Section 118-41, by Roy Price, 115 Circle Drive - Approved. ---The variance would reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet for a garage addition to a single family dwelling in the RL zone. ---Petitioner's statement of hardship: The owner would like to add on to his existing garage in order to have a place to park a 26 foot motor home and a pickup truck. The rear lot line is adjacent to an alley, so the reduced setback will not adversely affect any adjacent property owners. ---Staff recommendation: Approval if there are no objections from the neighbors." Zoning Administrator Barnes stated that the property was on the corner of Circle Drive and Lake Street. The petitioner would like to add to an existing single car garage to allow room for his motor home and a truck. The rear of the property is adjacent to an alley so there is some separation from where the proposed addition would be and the adjacent property. Petioner Roy Price, 115 Circle Drive, stated that the garage would be 15 feet tall, about 8 inches taller that the existing house. He would build onto the existing garage, adding two stalls, with one peak covering all three parking stalls. He would be adding another 21 feet from the existing exterior wall. Boardmember Barnett made a motion to approve the variance for the harship stated. Boardmember Lieser seconded the motion. Yeas: Walker, Lieser, Barnett. Nays: None. ZBA Minutes - October 9, 1986 Page 14 Other Business: The Board decided to postpone the election of officers until the November meeting. Meeting Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Eva Lieser, Chairman Peter Barnes, Staff Support EL/PB/bb September 19, 1986 To the Zoning Board of Appeals: We, John and Donna Miller, owners of the property located at 313 Allen Street, request a variance of the required 15' setback on the back (south) lot line to a distance of a 7' setback. The purpose for the setback is to install an 18'x22' pre-cut garage and wood workshop. The 7' setback would allow installation without disturbing one apple tree and one ash tree. The 15' setback would require the removal of both trees in order to have access to a garage door from Tulane Dr. The 7' setback will also provide a 15' clearance between the new garage and patio roof. A more pleasing appearance and useable backyard will also be obtained with the 7' setback. The 6' utility easement in the back will also be clear of obstructions with a 7' setback. / 2, /' " / ��14" �Ll, Jo,fifi Miller RECEIVED OCT vx���~/v��*w^ � Lo ssm ~~~° � ���z�� c� �uil1irg Irspecti�n ��r� �alli�s. Colorado �C�22 �E: \ari�oce Pequest 1763 by Jo�n �il�er, �l3 Aller �tree�, ��ppea� /�o �e have ro obj is varianca, as long as �t �ncroaches upcn no easemen�s, as it wculd no� rcsu�t ir an/ ��t�imen�. To �he conirary, the Mi�lers keep their property �'` excelleni czndi�ion �nd the ad�iiion of the pp�sed �acility �i�l inp-r/e t�e prcperty �alues �n the area �e recomr nend awarj of ��e va"iarce as rrquested c: MrJ��p �iller � � t7 \ CITY OFOR COLLIN� 3oe OFFICE OF EUILD 1G INSPECTION Q Date September 30, 1986 �uZ NATIONAL WESTERN LIFE :v,uRANOeCOMPANY LEGAL NOTICE _ �. CU:OnA 00 C05?5 "'" i7 The purpose of this letter is to inform you of a request for a mooiucatlon of the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins. The procedure for a person requesting a modification of the Zoning Code is to make application and appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. This Board has been established to hear cases, where by reason of exceptional situations or conditions, the strict application of the regulation in the Zoning Code of the City of Fort Collins would result in exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that the granting of a variance would not result in a substantial detriment to the public mood. A variance of Code Sec - -97 (D)& (E) has been requ s e by: Lloyd Gomez, for the following described property 120 A !-Jest Laurel The variance would allow a barber shop to have a revolving sign. Snecifically, the variance would allow an xisting, traditional, red, white, & blue barber pole sign to revolve. The b rber shop is located in the 3G zone. This item will appear on the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda as Appeal No. 1764 As an adjacent proper y owner, your input would be appropriate in the consideration of the var� rice request. The hearing on this a peal will be held at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 9, 1986 300 West Laporte . venue. Those interested may appear at this meeting, or if unable to attend y submit comments in writing. Meeting sites are generally accessible to hand' apped persons. If you are disabled and need special assistance to participate, ple se call 221-6760. If you have any or comments, feel free to contact Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrato1r t 221-6160. Peter Barnes, Zoning Administrator d $$^^,,nn �I ^�`d�"�r T: - u). OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTION ' 3DO L. iPorte Ave . PO. 61 � > %Tr, FkS-: Fort Collins. Colorad❑ 0522� 1303) 221-6760 • _• L �--[i� L ! ;�' e%/r Gam.._..✓� Iµ , r � %) � � :%� 'P.'. i,L �� �.L lL.� f ? 4.: �.� ✓ %(. � ��i .C/�G it. r.(' JN cif `-1�,! .�/i. ✓.:�Y L-::1 r `- r -�- f _,L t �•- f ,'�'l .� !�, .yr ,%/_.i{_r',+�!.�-' /.'✓ . Cr-�A.f� C I✓ C~� /./ f .c'. �o.(c.:"..r, % -�_ �/.-yG �-t� �, L,-��Cc:/.0 � ' -�j' yam/ ..�/ � � lr� r � /t/f .(�.,.. [ r .�'-G L•Lr i i �e-.Lt%/ �L.e - C�—LL ?�Le�G i f-w'G�� y a'�ir�• LL' �- r i r ' / 9 •